You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON THE “LOCALITY RULE” TO DISMISS THE OPINION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT BECAUSE THE EXPERT PRACTICED MEDICINE IN ANOTHER STATE: WHEN AN EXPERT TESTIFIES ABOUT STANDARDS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THE LOCALITY RULE SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court in this medical malpractice action, determined plaintiffs’ expert affidavit was not conclusory or speculative and raised triable questions of fact. The Third Department noted that Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiffs’ expert’s (Grant’s) opinion on the ground Grant practiced medicine in a different state. Although the “locality rule” has not been set aside, it does not affect the validity of an opinion based on standards applicable throughout the United States:

… [W]e briefly address Supreme Court’s reliance on the fact that Grant practiced medicine in another state to ostensibly dismiss his opinions. Over 125 years ago in Pike v Honsinger (155 NY 201 [1898]), the Court of Appeals promulgated what has become known as the locality rule … . Under this rule, “the prevailing standard of care governing the conduct of medical professionals demands that a doctor exercise that reasonable degree of learning and skill that is ordinarily possessed by physicians and surgeons in the locality where the doctor practices” … . While this rule has not been set aside, this Court has indicated that “the development of vastly superior medical schools and postgraduate training, modern communications, the proliferation of medical journals, along with frequent seminars and conferences, have eroded the justification for th[is] rule” … . With the rise of the Internet and the attendant ease with which information is disseminated, this is even more true today. “Thus, where, as here, a medical expert proposes to testify about minimum standards applicable throughout the United States, the locality rule should not be invoked” … . Kosinski v Wladis, 2025 NY Slip Op 06772, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: In a med mal case, where an expert testifies about standards applicable throughout the United States, the “locality rule” requiring the application of local standards should no longer be invoked. Here plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion was erroneously dismissed because the expert practiced medicine in a different state.

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FLOOR TO CEILING WOODEN BRACE IN A HOME WHICH WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THE THIRD DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS NATURE OF THE BRACE DID NOT WARRANT THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the open and obvious nature of condition (a wooden brace over which plaintiff tripped) did not warrant summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the Labor Law 200 cause of action. The home was under construction and the brace ran at a 45 degree angle from the floor to the ceiling in the middle of the kitchen:

… [D]efendants failed to meet their prima facie burden as questions of fact remain as to whether defendants maintained the worksite in a reasonably safe condition, precluding summary judgment. … [D]efendants presented an affidavit of David Rubin, a former CEO of a general contracting firm with 45 years of experience in the field of general construction. Rubin reviewed, among other things, photographs of the worksite and observed there were two-by-four wooden braces set up throughout the home that were “necessary and fundamental to the construction process.” He explained that the brace plaintiff tripped over was “conspicuous and not hidden from sight, and indeed, plaintiff had already seen that particular brace prior to his incident.” Ultimately, he opined that neither the use nor the placement of the brace was negligent as it was necessary to support the structure at that stage of construction.

Although Rubin placed great emphasis on the fact that the brace was open and obvious and that plaintiff saw it prior to his fall, this Court has repeatedly held that “the open and obvious nature of an allegedly dangerous condition does not, standing alone, necessarily obviate a [general contractor’s] duty to maintain [the worksite] in a reasonably safe condition” … . Rather, the readily observable nature of the wooden brace “merely negated any duty that defendant[s] owed plaintiff to warn of [the] potentially dangerous condition[ ]” … . Nor does plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition that he saw the wooden brace prior to his fall defeat his claim as his “previous knowledge of a defective condition, if any, may be considered by a jury in assessing comparative negligence” … . Accordingly, “[v]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ [worksite was] maintained in a reasonably safe condition. That question is for the trier of fact to resolve” … . Sullivan v Flynn, 2025 NY Slip Op 06773, Third Dept 12-4-25

Practice Point: Here the Third Department noted that a condition which is open and obvious and of which the plaintiff was aware before he was injured is not a sufficient ground for the award of summary judgment on a Labor Law 200 cause of action. Here a wooden floor to ceiling brace in the middle of the kitchen in a house under construction, over which plaintiff tripped, was deemed to raise a question of fact.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT IN DEFENDANT BANK WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP BY A FRAUDSTER TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLEAD A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK WHICH IS REQUIRED BEFORE A DUTY (OWED TO PLAINTIFF) TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES ARISES; THE COMPLAINT THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a one-sentence memorandum decision which adopted the reasoning of the Second Department dissent by Justice Higgitt, reversed the Second Department’s ruling that the complaint adequately pled a special relationship between the bank and plaintiff and held that the bank’s motion to dismiss the complaint should have been granted. There must have existed a special relationship between defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank and plaintiff before a duty (owed to plaintiff) to enforce the bank’s anti-fraud procedures arises. Defendant David Tate had opened an account at a New Jersey Chase bank in the name of his business, Alchemy. Tate did not provide any personal identification or any corporate documentation to the bank. Plaintiff, thinking she was investing in Alchemy, wired $300,000 to the Alchemy account which was appropriated by Tate. As Justice Higgitt wrote in his dissent:

On this appeal, which involves an individual who was swindled when she authorized a wire transfer to the account of a fraudster, we are asked to determine whether New Jersey law recognizes a common-law duty on the part of a bank to an existing customer to exercise reasonable care before permitting a potential customer to open an account. I find that a duty to exercise such care exists only when a bank has a “special relationship” with its existing customer from which that duty should be deemed to flow. The amended complaint, however, fails to allege facts suggesting that a special relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant Bank. Therefore, defendant Bank’s CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion should have been granted. Ben-Dor v Alchemy Consultant LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03797, Second Dept 7-11-24; Ben-Dor v Alchemy Consultant LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 06538 CtApp 11-25-25

Practice Point: In New Jersey, to sue a bank for the wrongful conduct of a third party, here the use of a bank account to defraud plaintiff, the bank must owe plaintiff a special duty. Reversing the Second Department and adopting the reasoning of the dissent, the Court of Appeals held the complaint should have been dismissed because it did not adequately allege the existence of a special relationship between the bank and the plaintiff.

 

,

IN THIS DRAM SHOP ACT CASE, DEFENDANT BAR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NOT VISIBLY INTOXICATED WHEN SERVED AND THEREFORE DID NOT MEET ITS INITIAL BURDEN FOR ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT BAR MET ITS INITIAL BURDEN, THUS SHIFITNG THE BURDEN TO THE PLANTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined, in this Dram Shop Act case, defendant bar did not demonstrate defendant driver was not visibly intoxicated when served alcohol. The dissenters argued the bar met its initial burden on its motion for summary judgment:

In support of the motion, defendant submitted evidence that, throughout the evening preceding the accident, plaintiff and a group of others—including the driver—were out celebrating and consumed alcohol. Just before they went to defendant’s bar, the entire group had been denied entry into another establishment because some members of the group were visibly intoxicated. At defendant’s bar, the group was served and consumed more alcohol. Although defendant’s owner and employees testified that defendant’s employees as a general practice do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to drink alcohol and that the employees were trained to recognize visibly intoxicated people, no one could specifically recall seeing the driver, nor could they describe the driver’s level of intoxication on the night at issue … . In fact, none of the deposition testimony submitted by defendant was from an individual physically present inside the bar at the time the driver was allegedly served.

From the dissent:

…. [W]e conclude that defendant met its initial burden on the motion by submitting uncontradicted deposition testimony “in which its employees averred that they had no recollection that [the driver] was visibly intoxicated while she was . . . at [defendant]’s establishment” … . … [D]efendant’s employees testified that staff are trained to recognize visibly intoxicated persons; that bartenders do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to drink alcohol; and that bouncers do not allow visibly intoxicated persons to enter the bar, that they make rounds inside the establishment in order to observe the patrons and determine if anyone is visibly intoxicated, and that they signal the bartenders to stop serving alcohol to patrons who are visibly intoxicated. Additionally, a bouncer testified that he recalled conducting “rounds inside the establishment” on the night of the incident and that he observed the patrons, as was his routine, but did not “signal[ ] to the bartenders that anyone was intoxicated.” Gonzalez v City of Buffalo, 2025 NY Slip Op 06423, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: In moving for summary judgment in a Dram Shop Act case, the defendant bar had the initial burden to demonstrate it did not serve a visibly intoxicated defendant. Because the majority concluded that initial burden was not met, the summary judgment motion was denied without the need to consider the plaintiff’s response. The dissent disagreed with the majority and argued the bar had met its initial burden.​

 

, , , ,

THE MOTION COURT PROPERLY ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS MED MAL CASE TO RESCIND THE CORRESPONDENCE SENT TO PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT PROVIDERS WHICH DISCOURAGED THEM FROM SPEAKING WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUING AN ADVISORY OPINION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent which argued the majority was improperly issuing an advisory opinion, determined the trial judge in this medical malpractice action properly ordered plaintiff’s counsel rescind correspondence sent to treatment providers which discouraged the treatment providers from speaking with defense counsel. The correspondence accompanied the “Arons” speaking authorizations executed by the plaintiff:

… [A] plaintiff who signs an authorization allowing a treating physician to speak to defense counsel about the plaintiff’s medical condition at issue should not be allowed to send a letter separately to the same physician requesting that the physician not speak to defense counsel. Permitting plaintiffs to make such a request would undermine the purpose of the Arons authorization and, at the very least, be confusing to the physician … .

Adding to the confusion is the statement “I value and wish to protect the confidentiality of our physician-patient relationship,” which may lead the physician to conclude that, notwithstanding plaintiff’s execution of the speaking authorization, plaintiff was not actually waiving the physician-patient privilege or the privacy protections afforded by HIPAA. …

… [T]he letter … might lead the physician to believe, wrongly, that plaintiff has a right to attend any informal interview with defense counsel. … [A] defendant’s attorney may ask treating physicians to participate in ex parte interviews, which by definition do not involve the plaintiff. While a physician may insist that the plaintiff be present for such an interview, that is a decision for the physician alone to make. Just as a defendant’s attorney has no right to interview the physician informally … , a plaintiff has no right to attend the interview (the plaintiff has only the right to ask the physician for permission to attend an interview).

Based on the above, we cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in directing plaintiff “to send correspondence to his treating physicians rescinding all prior letters sent containing the language that the [c]ourt has deemed to be confusing, misleading and/or intimidating.”  Murphy v Kaleida Health, 2025 NY Slip Op 06421, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Here the letters sent to treatment providers by plaintiff’s counsel, which accompanied the “Arons” speaking authorizations, improperly discouraged the treatment providers from speaking with defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel was properly ordered to rescind the correspondence.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM PERSONNEL WERE UNAWARE PLAINTIFF HAD EXECUTED A “MOLST” DECLINING LIFE-SAVING TREATMENT WHEN THEY PERFORMED CHEST COMPRESSIONS WHICH REVIVED PLAINTIFF BUT FRACTURED RIBS; PLAINTIFF SUFFERED ANOTHER HEART ATTACK SEVEN HOURS LATER AND DIED; A JURY AWARDED DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ARTICULATE A STANDARD OF CARE OR A VIOLATION OF A STANDARD OF CARE; THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the denial of defendant hospital’s motion for a directed verdict in this med mal case, determined the plaintiff’s expert did not establish the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof. Plaintiff had executed a Medical Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) declining life-saving measures. Hospital personnel were not aware of the MOLST when plaintiff presented in the emergency room. When plaintiff became unresponsive, chest compressions were performed. Plaintiff was revived but he had suffered rib fractures. The plaintiff suffered a second heart attack and died seven hours later. The jury awarded damages for pain and suffering:

… [T]he court erred in denying [defendant’s] motion for a directed verdict. “[V]iewing the evidence in [the] light most favorable to [plaintiff] and affording [plaintiff] the benefit of every inference,” we conclude that there was “no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of” plaintiff inasmuch as there was no expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care or a breach thereof … . At trial, plaintiff’s expert described how a hospital could communicate a patient’s MOLST in order to ensure that it was honored, what hospitals were “allowed” to do, what he would “expect,” what “should” happen, and what “option[s]” were available, but he did not state what an accepted standard of care required. Further, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff’s expert articulated a standard of care, we conclude that he failed to opine that any such standard was violated under the specific circumstances of this case … . Cianci v University of Rochester, 2025 NY Slip Op 06492, Fourth Dept 11-21-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for an example of vague expert testimony in a med mal case which failed to articulate a standard of care or a breach thereof.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN SHE USED HER ARM TO KEEP THE ELEVATOR DOOR FROM CLOSING; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE ELEVATOR WAS IN GOOD WORKING CONDITION TWO WEEKS BEFORE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants (building owner and elevator company) were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint which alleged the elevator doors slammed shut on plaintiff’s hand. A video showed that plaintiff extended her arm between the door frame and the elevator door to keep it from closing:

Movants sustained their initial burden of demonstrating that the elevator door was safe and code compliant at the time of the accident and that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. The report prepared by defendant … , approximately two weeks prior to the accident, found that the subject elevator was maintained commensurate with local industry practices and that the systems functioned at or near recommended standards. Moreover, the video of the incident, which plaintiff authenticated by testifying that it was a fair and accurate depiction of the events, showed that plaintiff extended her arm between the door frame and the elevator door to keep the door from closing. Such evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact … . Ellerbee v 61 W. 62 Owners Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 06386, First Dept 11-20-25

Practice Point: If you are injured using your arm or hand to stop an elevator door from closing and it is shown the elevator was working properly, your complaint will be dismissed. (But isn’t it foreseeable that people will try to stop an elevator door from closing with their hands, and shouldn’t there be a safety mechanism which would prevent the door from closing?)

 

, , ,

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MENTAL-HEALTH TREATMENT OF A PEDOPHILE PRIEST WERE NOT PROTECTED BY PRIEST-PENITENT, PHYSICIAN-PATIENT OR PSYCHOLOGIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGES; THE NAMES OF OTHER CHILDREN ABUSED BY THE PRIEST ALLEGED TO HAVE ABUSED PLAINTIFF ARE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined progress reports concerning the mental health treatment of a pedophile priest were discoverable without redaction in this Child Victims Act case against the Diocese. The Diocese claimed the redacted information was protected from disclosure by the priest-penitent, physician-patient and psychologist-patient privileges. The Second Department determined those privileges were waived by the (pedophile) priest who consented to forwarding the reports to a third-party, a Bishop overseeing the priest’s progress. In addition, the priest-penitent privilege did not apply because the documents did not relate to spiritual guidance. The Second Department further determined that the names of other victims allegedly abused by the same priest were discoverable:

This appeal permits us to address two principal sets of issues. The first is a rare two-step analysis regarding the potential disclosure of progress reports and letters generated at the request of a religious organization to determine whether an alleged pedophile priest could be safely returned to duties at a parish. Under the circumstances of this appeal, we hold that the progress reports of an alleged pedophile priest that are shared with his Bishop with accompanying letters, to assist the Bishop in determining whether the priest may return to parish duties, fall outside the scope of the clergy-penitent privilege of confidentiality under CPLR 4505. Further, we hold that the physician-patient and psychologist-patient privileges of confidentiality for progress reports and letters generated by a psychological treatment facility to assist the same Bishop’s determination, and disclosed to the Bishop for that purpose, are waived under CPLR 4504 and 4507. Relatedly, we hold that the Appellate Division, Second Department, agrees with the reasoning of the Appellate Divisions, First and Third Departments, that in actions pursuant to the Child Victims Act (CVA) (see CPLR 214-g), courts may exercise discretion in favor of requiring the unredacted disclosure of the identities of alleged abuse victims other than the plaintiff, so long as those abuses were committed by the same alleged abuser rather than by any other alleged abuser. Maida v Diocese of Brooklyn, 2025 NY Slip Op 06314, Second Dept 11-19-25

​Practice Point: Consult this opinion for discussions of the nature of the priest-penitent, physician-patient and psychologist-patient privileges in the context of the discovery of documents relating to the mental health treatment of a pedophile priest accused of abusing children.

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for a discussion of the discoverability of the names of other children abused by the priest who is alleged to have abused the plaintiff.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DEMONSTRATED A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR NOT TIMELY FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE AFTER A NINETY-DAY DEMAND, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH RELIED ON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY TWO SOURCES, BUT DID NOT SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS FROM THOSE SOURCES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined, although plaintiff offered a justifiable excuse for failing to timely file a note of issue, plaintiff did not demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Therefore the complaint should have been dismissed. The complaint alleged the defendants negligently failed to provide adequate mental health and substance abuse treatment to the decedent, who died of a drug overdose in a shelter owned and operated by defendants:

Following a period of over one year during which plaintiff failed to respond to their discovery demands, defendants served plaintiff with a written demand to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days (see CPLR 3216[b]). Plaintiff failed to respond within the 90-day period, resulting in defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

Although plaintiff’s counsel offered a justifiable excuse for the failure to file a note of issue following defendants’ service of 90-day notices, plaintiff failed to submit an adequate affidavit of merit demonstrating a meritorious cause of action in opposition to defendants’ motions … . In her affidavit, plaintiff, who had no personal knowledge of the events in question, relied on two unnamed hearsay sources … . Plaintiff offered no excuse for failing to provide affidavits from the shelter residents who supplied her with the information upon which her affidavit was based … , and, in any event, she did not show that defendants’ negligence was “a substantial cause of the events” resulting in her son’s death … . Felipe v Volunteers of Am.-Greater N.Y., 2025 NY Slip Op 06252, First Dept 11-13-25

Practice Point: In seeking to avoid dismissal of a complaint for failing to timely file a note of issue after a 90-day demand, a plaintiff must offer a justifiable excuse and demonstrate a meritorious cause of action. Here plaintiff’s counsel provided a justifiable excuse. But to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action plaintiff submitted an affidavit which relied on hearsay. Without affidavits from the sources of the hearsay, a meritorious cause of action was not demonstrated and the complaint should have been dismissed.

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD” FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A POLICE CHASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS INJURED WHEN HER PATROL CAR WAS STRUCK BY THE PURSUED CAR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant police officer, Encarnation, acted with “reckless disregard” during a police chase. The pursued car crashed into plaintiff police officer’s, Corsi’s, patrol car. Defendant Encarnation worked for the Village of Ossining police department. Plaintiff Corsi worked for the Village of Briarcliff Manor police department. Plaintiff sued both Encarnation and the Village of Ossining:

The plaintiff commenced the instant action against, among others, the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 207-c(6) for the reimbursement of all salary, benefits, and expenses paid by the plaintiff to Corsi as a result of injuries she sustained in the line of duty due to the allegedly reckless or negligent conduct of the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion that took place during Encarnacion’s pursuit of Hester and Hester’s eventual crash into Corsi’s vehicle. * * *

… [T]he Village of Ossining and Encarnacion failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Encarnacion acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and whether such conduct was a proximate cause of Corsi’s injuries … . In support of their motion, the Village of Ossining and Encarnacion submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Encarnacion, Hester, and Corsi, who collectively testified that on the day at issue, Encarnacion pursued Hester at high speeds through residential and commercial roads and that Hester struck another vehicle and narrowly avoided striking pedestrians during the chase. Village of Briarcliff Manor v Village of Ossining, 2025 NY Slip Op 06214, Second Dept 11-12-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into the evidence which will raise a question of fact whether a police officer, during an emergency car-chase, acted with “reckless disregard” for the safety of others such that a police officer injured when the pursued car crashed into her patrol car can sue pursuant to General Municipal Law 207-c (6).

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy